| Click to Post a New Message!
Page [ 1 ] |
|
|
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
My old '94 Ranger hadthe synchros go out of the manual tranny around 110k miles. You used to be able to outdo an auto with a manual transmission and the talent to drive one. But the computer can do the math for you much faster. I shouldn't be surprised the autos are starting to get better mileage. Now if they'll just start using diesels or better fuel efficient engines!!
Example - '05 Ford Expedition driving on I29 into a 30+ mph head wind knocked the mileage down to the high 12's, low 13's. Man, that sucked!! I was so pissed seeing that mileage and remembering the idiot salesguy respond to my question about a diesel engine in it: "Why would you want that?"
|
|
 Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
kwschumm - the computer is only as good as it's programming. Vehicles today are designed as a compromise because the single program has to work in a vehicle whether it's being driven in January in a Canadian province or in August through the Mexican deserts. Hence, the nice aftermarket programing changes for things like towing, fuel economy, etc.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
Even as this moves off on a tangent, the argument for auto vs stick an fuel mileage depends a lot on the situation. I opted for the auto on my F250 because my then wife-to-be (I did upgrade her to the actual wife title) struggled with learning a manual transmission. Plus my towing was typically going to be limited to less than 4,000 lbs. If I was going to use it predominantly as a towing vehicle at higher loads, I would have opted for the manual.
From the military's perspective, it probably because more cost effective to go with automatics rather than face the incerasing cost of repairing the manual transmissions. As the US population shifts to less mechanical inclination, I am sure their recruits' ability to operate a manual transmission has greatly diminished. If I ran a commercial business, I would have to consider the cost of a manual vs the cost of an auto especiall in repairs, longevity, etc.
But for the average joe blow out there, a computer controlled auto will beat you on fuel mileage. But maybe not if you are towing a 12,000 lb camper across the rockies... All depends on the scenario.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
another comparison I thought of right after I hit submit was the gear vs HST arguement for tractors. I went with HST because my wife can handle a simple forward/reverse pedal combination. Meaning she is less likely to ram my shop or the house because she panicked and forgot to press the clutch in. But then, I'm not working the unit hard by running a subsoiler, etc. If I tried to do everything a gear tarctor can do for 90% of it's usage, I'd be doing some damage. Just like auto vs manual in vehicles.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Automatic Better Economy Than Manual
Murf, when I wa a volunteer foreman, we had a truck with a water tank on the back. It was geared so low you could spin the rear tires in 1st gear with a load of water in it. I forget what it was, been a few years. It was cool to drive but didn't have the highest top speed.
|
|
Add Photo
Bookmarks: |
|
| |
|
Page [ 1 ] | Thread 120329 Filter by Poster:
2 | 1 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
|
()
Picture of the Day
Coachlarry
Unanswered Questions
Active Subjects
Hot Topics
Featured Suppliers
|
Gas Generator Weather Protecti
12-05-2005, 12:26 
Digg It 
Del.icio.us